Asset survey report-final
- 1. I Assets generated under MGNREGA- Maharashtra: Examining processes and impact generated in tribal villages of Nashik Submitted to Ashwini Kulkari Director, Pragati Abhiyan Submitted by Gopal S Mahajan1 Ajay J Hole2 1 Gopal Mahajan is with Tata Institute of social sciences, Mumbai 2 Ajay Hole, a civil engineer, is a technical consultant on Watershed and MGNREGA.
- 2. II CONTENTS Abbreviations : III List of tables : IV List of graphs and figures : IV Chapter 1: Introduction : 1 Chapter 2: Objectives and methodology : 3 Chapter 3: Findings : 11 Chapter 4: Impact generated : 20 Chapter 5: Case studies : 26 Chapter 6: Conclusions and recommendations : 29 References : 31
- 3. III ABBREVIATIONS MGNREGA : Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act NREGA : National Rural Employment Guarantee Act EGS : Employment Guarantee Scheme INRM : Integrated Natural Resource Management RTI : Right to Information IEC : Information, Education and Communication PRI : Panchayat Raj Institutions CSO : Civil Society Organization SHG : Self Help Group SC : Schedule Castes ST : Schedule Tribes
- 4. IV LIST OF TABLES S. No Table Number Table Name Page Number 5 Table 2.1 Performance of MGNREGA in Nashik 13 6 Table 2.2 Basic demographic data of field area of Pragati Abhiyan 15 7 Table 4.1 Income generation through MGNREGA wages in Nashik 29 LIST OF FIGURES AND MAPS S. No Figure No Figure Name and description Page Number 1 Figure2.1 Map of the study area in Nashik 11 2 Figure 2.2 Tribal blocks in Nashik 12 3 Figure 2.3 Employment generation under MGNREGA In Nashik 13 4 Figure 2.4 Person days generated and share of SC/ST in Nashik 14 5 Figure 3.1 Components of a process in MGNREGA 18 6 Figure 3.2 Planning process of MGNREGA works 19 7 Figure 3.3 Ownership of assets 20 8 Figure 3.4 Type of works 21 9 Figure 3.5 Implementation process of MGNREGA works 22 10 Figure 3.6 Selection of works for implementation 23 11 Figure 3.7 Correct site selection 24 12 Figure 3.8 Supervision done by technical assistant 25 13 Figure 3.9 Complete/incomplete works 25 14 Figure 3.10 Technical quality of assets 26 15 Figure 4.1 Assets and their intended impact 27 16 Figure 4.2 Impact on migration 28 17 Figure 4.3 Increase in income from assets 28 18 Figure 4.4 Nature of impact of assets 29 19 Figure 4.5 How do people feel about assets 30
- 5. 1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION MGNREGA stands for ‘Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act’ enacted in September 2005 by Indian Parliament and brought into effect from February 2006 in 200 most backward districts of India. It was subsequently extended to all the 640 districts entire country in April 2008. The mandate of the Act is “to provide at least 100 days of guaranteed wage employment in a financial year to every rural household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work.” Creation of productive and durable assets that strengthen sustainable livelihood resource base of rural areas is one of the key objectives of MGNREGA. The Act’s initial thrust was on wage employment i.e. providing wages to workers without much concern to productive assets. But after 5 years of implementation, central government decided to emphasize on generation of productive assets. While income in the form of wages can support rural people in distress in the short run, productive and durable asset generation is the sustainable way to make significant dent into the problem of rural poverty and unemployment. MGNERGA Operational guidelines 2013 also stress Integrated Natural Resource Management approach (INRM) for livelihoods generation. Hence, examining performance of MGNREGA in terms of generation of productive and durable assets then becomes important to identify opportunities and challenges involved. Around 146 lakh works have been undertaken; of these, almost 51 per cent are works related to water (water conservation, flood control, irrigation, drought proofing, renovation of traditional water bodies and micro-irrigation), and over 19 per cent works are related to rural connectivity. At such a scale, MGNREGA works have the potential to benefit rural communities by improving irrigation facilities, enhancing land productivity and connecting remote villages to input and output markets. Overall, studies suggest that while many productive assets have been created on the ground owing to good planning and execution at the micro-level, there is need for more focused implementation with regard to the creation of durable and sustainable assets under MGNREGA. Out of 146 lakh, 87 lakh works have been completed with the completion rate of
- 6. 2 around 60 per cent. Completion rate is affected by factors like poor planning, lack of technical support, irregular flow of funds, and delayed payment. (MGNREGA Sameeksha 2012) MGNREGA has faced criticism on the quality and sustainability of the assets created under it. Critics of the Scheme argue that since employment generation is the primary objective of the Act, the works undertaken are labour-intensive. These works tend to be non-durable and have limited use. (Down to Earth 2011) On the other hand, other scholars suggest that earthen works can also be durable if planned, designed and constructed properly. (Mihir Shah 2008) It is important to note that findings related to quality, durability and rate of work completion suggest that the problem is not in the design of the Act but the usefulness of the Scheme is dependent on the strength of its implementation at the field level. Rationale for the study While there are many studies focusing implementation related problems, rigorous research is required on village level planning and implementation processes and the bottlenecks involved in creating productive and durable assets. The present study examines both input and output side of asset generation. It examines village level planning and implementation processes at input side with reference to the Act and guidelines. Besides, the study also measures the quality and impact of the assets generated at output side. The present study tries to establish the nature of relation between village level planning and implementation processes and the quality and impact of assets.
- 7. 3 CHAPTER II: OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY OBJECTIVES This study sought to explore planning and implementation process of MGNREGA works at village level. Planning is very critical to create productive and durable assets under MGNREGA. Technical support and people’s participation are the key aspects of planning. The study examines the planning process that took place at village level with reference to guidelines laid out in MGNREGA. Implementation requires a series of well defined tasks to be executed within stipulated time by different stakeholders to create productive assets. The study checks how this process actually takes place at village level and how they affect quality and impact of assets generated. The other objective of this study is to assess impact generated by the assets created. Technical quality of an asset is the most critical for achieving the intended impact. So, the study measures quality of selected assets through worksite verification with certain technical indicators. The study also takes into consideration people’s perception on the quality of the asset. Impact achieved is primarily measured through what people have to say about the utility of the assets. To summarize, objectives of this study are as following – 1. To study village level planning and implementation processes related to asset generation 2. To examine quality and impact of the assets generated METHODOLOGY Selection of study area The study area is located in Nashik district. Nashik district, located in the Northern part of Maharashtra, has total population 6109052. It ranks 11th among 640 districts in India in terms of population size. Its population comprises 23.9% of schedule tribes, much higher than Maharashtra’s overall 8.8% tribal population. 57.5% of population stays in rural areas while
- 8. 4 42.5% of population stays in urban areas. The overall literacy rate is 80.9% but literacy rate for rural areas is 67.7%. Sex ratio is 931 per 1000 male. Figure 2.1: Map of the study area in Nashik
- 9. 5 The district is characterized by regional development imbalance as the half of its blocks like Niphad, Pimpalgaon Baswant and Chandwad are well developed whereas blocks like Peth, Surgana, Igatpuri and Trimbakeshwar are underdeveloped. 40.5% of rural families are below poverty line. Figure 2.2: Tribal blocks in Nashik Source: Socio-economic survey 2011 – Nashik district Rural Nashik is a huge administrative unit with 15 blocks and 1382 Gram Panchayats and 1931 villages. Out of 15 blocks in Nashik, 7 blocks, located in the hilly terrains of Sahyadri mountain ranges, are tribal. 74 93 38 95 66 34.5 52.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Share of STs in total population (%) Share of STs in total population (%)
- 10. 6 Performance of MGNREGA in Nashik district Figure 2.3: Employment generation under MGNREGA in Nashik Source: nrega.nic.in (as on Mar 10, 2013) MGNREGA was launched phase wise. Phase 1 was launched in 200 poorest districts of India on Feb 06, 2006. The act was extended to 350 districts in 2007. In phase 3, MGNREGA covered all the districts of India in April 1, 2008. Nashik is one of the phase 3 districts in Maharashtra. Total number of households provided work were 3.9%, 16.5% and 19.9% to the registered households for the years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. Total number of households provided 100 days of work per year were 10.2%, 9.8% and 16% to the total number of households provided work for 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. Table 2.1 Performance of MGNREGA in Nashik Year Person days per Household Total works done Total expenditure (Lakh) 2010-11 40 988 419.6 2011-12 43 6469 4305.3 2012-13 59 11075 6029.9 Source: nrega.nic.in (as on Mar 10, 2013) 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 224684 261962 274290 8653 43158 54647 880 4248 8733 HH registered HH provided work HH getting 100 days work
- 11. 7 Figure 2.4: Person days generated and share of SC/ST in Nashik Source: nrega.nic.in (as on Mar 10, 2013) Figure 2.4 suggests that Scheduled castes and scheduled tribes contributed to 42.9%, 45.6% and 35% of total person days generated for the years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. Average person days generated per household provided work were 40, 43 and 59 for the years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. Field area of host organization Pragati Abhiyan, a civil society organization, works extensively on MGNREGA at State, district and Gram Panchayat level. The organization works with 50 villages of 3 tribal blocks namely Trimbakeshwar, Peth and Igatpuri. Theses blocks are characterized by low human development indicators with degraded natural resources and distress migration. The gross irrigated area is 1.16% for Peth and 3.64% for Igatpuri. The data is not available for Trimbakeshwar. 0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000 2500000 3000000 3500000 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 346169 1850917 3215459 148672 843752 1124942 Person days generated Share of SC/ST
- 12. 8 Table 2.2 Basic demographic data of field area of Pragati Abhiyan Block Gram Panchayats Villages Population Share of STs (%) BPL families (%) Trimbakeshwar 84 125 145928 74 65.7 Peth 73 145 102307 93 68.2 Igatpuri 94 119 250287 38 41.1 Source: Socio-economic survey 2011 – Nashik district Sampling Based on purposive sampling, 9 tribal Gram Panchayats in the field area of Pragati Abhiyan with relatively higher expenditure were selected. The Gram Panchayats names are Aswali Harsh, Chandrachi Met and Avhate from Trimbakeshwar, Walvihir, Dhargaon and Chinchale Khaire from Igatpuri block and Dolharmal, Amlon and Gavandh from Peth block. All the assets that were carried out during April 1, 2008 to Mar 31, 2012 i.e. past four years were selected for the study. These include 40 assets of 8 types of works namely well, farm pond, lose boulder structure, Land leveling, road, plantation, village pond and di-silting. Study tools The study tools were designed to capture and analyze the processes related to - Conceptualization i.e. planning of works Implementation of works Impact of the assets
- 13. 9 Focused group discussions were carried out with the workers were conducted to understand planning and implementation process. Focused group discussions were conducted to measure impact of the public assets and personal interview with beneficiaries were conducted to measure impact of private assets. Technical expert assessed technical quality of the selected assets through worksite survey. The study analyzes whether the beneficiary is getting some income from the asset. The researcher had further intended to study income more precisely through Return on investment (RoI) of some of the best assets to showcase them as case studies of potential that MGNREGA can accomplish. But such assets had hardly completed a year and so RoI was not possible for the same. Other assets done before two years didn’t show substantial income. Government documents like development plan, technical design, material bills, muster and measurement books related to these assets were one of the important study tools to examine and validate village level processes particularly those related to technical quality of assets. But the documents couldn’t be obtained through filing application under right to information and frequent follow ups. To summarize, following tools were used for this study - Focused group discussion with workers Personal interview with the beneficiary of private asset Worksite survey Use of Right To Information
- 14. 10 Limitations of the study Since focused group discussions with the worker are perception based, they might have missed what people don’t know particularly the legal and technical details. For example, one of the questions asked in the focused group discussion to the workers is whether the delayed wage payments affect the quality. Here, people are neither aware of the various indicators of technically sound asset precisely nor they are awareness of their entitlement of wage payment within 15 days. So, they can misjudge the quality of the assets and their response is not precisely correct. Nonetheless, technical indicators were measured more objectively through worksite visits. Official documents related to these assets were not made available by government officials at block despite filing RTI and frequent follow ups. So, the technical details related to planning, design and implementation couldn’t be examined thoroughly and meticulously. So, some of the findings and observations of the study tend to be gross as they primarily come from perception based focused group discussions. The study presumes the validity of the processes prescribed in the MGNREGA guidelines for generating productive and durable assets. Hence the study sticks to the examination of village level planning and implementation processes with reference to guidelines only. It doesn’t attempt to examine inherent flaws in the processes prescribed in MGNREGA guidelines.
- 15. 11 CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS Since we are dealing with planning and implementation related processes, it’s important to understand various sequential stages with their due significance to relate and make inferences based on the findings of the study. Certain entitlements given to people and Panchayat Raj Institutions are also needed to be taken into consideration. So, the processes with their stages are elaborated before mentioning findings. Figure 3.1: Components of a process in MGNREGA A process in MGNREGA has 3 dimensions – a stakeholder, a place and a time frame. For example, measurement of work is a process. Technical assistant (stakeholder) is responsible to take measurements at the worksite (place) on 8-9th day (time frame) of when a muster 1 started. 1 Daily attendance sheet for workers
- 16. 12 Planning process Overview Figure 3.2: Planning process of MGNREGA works Certain processes are involved in village level planning. First, there is Shivarferi 2 on a particular day where villagers join hands with the technical assistants from various line departments like forest, irrigation, agriculture, etc. Villagers assess their natural resource base and identify the works to be taken in the development plan. Line departments facilitate the process through technical support like site selection, technical design, cost estimates, etc. Planning must be done with the ‘ridge to valley’ watershed development approach and so with the implementation of the works. E.g. first, you have to build loose boulder structures and the like structures at the ridge and then only you can build and reap optimal and sustained benefits from wells, farm pond and other structures at the valley. So, the coordination of different line departments is critical too in planning and implementation of works. 2 Shivarferi is the transact walk of villagers together for natural resource mapping
- 17. 13 The works identified then are put as proposals before the Gramsabha for sanctions. After the due sanctions by Gramsabha, the proposal, now formed as development plan of the village for the coming year, is approved by block and district panchayats. Gramsabha has the right to prioritize works and other agencies are abided to approve and implement the priorities laid down by Gramsabha. Findings Awareness generation and capacity building are very important components for enabling community participation at village level planning. But people from all the 9 villages had no idea of planning process and its importance it creating productive assets. They had not been given any information about planning process either through Gramsabha or any other IEC 3 programme by the government. Gram panchayats were not at all equipped with the training, human resource and infrastructure required for planning. Shivarferi was not conducted in a single village and line departments didn’t show up for technical support. Ridge to valley based watershed development planning was not at all done for all of the villages. The works were identified and implemented in a half hazard manner. Figure 3.3: Ownership of assets 3 IEC stand for information education and communication programmes Public 25% Private 75% Ownership of assets Public Private
- 18. 14 As figure 3.3 shows, the preference was for private assets. 30 out of 40 assets studied are private assets. The water storage structures i.e. wells and farm ponds comprise 50% of the assets. Water and soil conservation structures at the ridge are essential for water storage at the valley. But, except for 3 loose boulder structures, all 37 assets carried out at the plains or valley area. This indicates that watershed planning was clearly missing. Besides, various studies across the nation show that while private assets are preferred by beneficiaries, public assets benefited a larger area and more people, leading to higher returns on investment. (MGNREGA Sameeksha 2012: Page 34) The Gramsabhas for planning took place in 6 villages. But the works were generally determined by village secretary and local body with little participation of people. Priority of works was not given by any Gramsabha and so the question of following it doesn’t arise. But all the resolutions of works sanctioned by Gramsabhas were approved by block and district panchayats. Cases of denial of private asset to any villager were not reported in focused group discussions. Planning for the previous year had been done in the same manner. Figure 3.4: Type of works 22.5 27.5 12.5 10 15 7.5 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Types of assets (%) Types of assets (%)
- 19. 15 The abovementioned findings clearly indicate complete lack of processes that are needed to be followed at village level. The processes related to technical support from the government and people’s participation are missing evidently. This becomes particularly critical given the deteriorating state of natural resources in this hilly terrain with high surface water runoff, high rate of soil erosion and low quality agricultural land. Implementation process Overview Figure 3.5: Implementation process of MGNREGA works Implementation of a work starts with selection of a particular work from the development plan of a Gram Panchayat. After selection of a work, a site is selected for implementing the work. Although site selection is to be done while planning itself, it’s not usually done as evident from the findings of the study. Site selection is done only when demand is registered by the people and a work needs to be taken up urgently to meet that demand. The technical assistant ought to visit
- 20. 16 the site and takes into account geographical, feasibility, strength of physical structure, etc. These measurements are important for preparing sound technical designs of an asset. Without proper measurements, the technical designs become typed designs and seriously hamper the quality of an asset. The sustainability of an asset depends to a large extent on the soundness of its technical design. A technical design requires technical and administrative sanctions from concerned authorities. After sanctions, a work is ready to get started. The technical assistant visits the site and gives lay out for specific tasks to be done by workers. Regular supervision of an ongoing work is important to ensure its quality. Once a work is completed, completion certificate is given by the concerned authority. Findings It is important to know why and how these particular 40 assets were selected for implementation. Only the random number of sanctioned assets was mentioned in the development plan for the Gram Panchayat. When the demand was registered by workers, the concerned beneficiaries came forward and showed willingness to get the asset done on their piece of land. In the early of years of MGNREGA, people were reluctant to get assets done on their land as they feared that the land will be taken away by the government. But the fear h no more exists today and people are eager to get their private assets built and reap benefits of MGNREGA. Figure 3.6: Selection of works for implementation 60 7.5 30 2.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Resolution in Gramsabha Decision by local body and secretary Campaign by State gov People's urgent demand Selection of work for implementation (%) Selection of work for implementation (%)
- 21. 17 Out of 40 assets, 24 were approved by Gramsabha. 12 assets included wells and plantation works taken up by state government in campaign mode. 3 assets were implemented with the decision made by local body and village secretary. 1 work was not in the development plan of the Gram Panchayat and was taken up directly to meet people’s urgent demand for work. Resolution in Gramsabha needs more attention here. Focused group discussions with the workers indicated on the nature of Gramsabhas in this area. Gramsabhas hardly take place and even they take place, the decisions are made by village secretary and influential members in local body. Figure 3.7: Correct site selection Incorrect site selection can make technically sound asset unproductive. Out of 40 assets, site selection was correct for 27 and incorrect for 13 assets. Basic measurements were taken for 23 assets and not taken for 17 assets. The soundness of the technical designs of these assets couldn’t be examined because the documents were not made available by the government. An RTI filed by the host organization, Pragati Abhiyan, revealed that technical designs for farm ponds in Igatpuri block were all typed designs and site specifications were not considered at all as technical assistant did not visit sites at all. Yes 70% No 30% Correct site selection Yes No
- 22. 18 Figure 3.8: Supervision done by technical assistant Regular supervision was done for only 8 assets. This has to deal with the availability of the technical staff at block level which needs a closer look. Figure 3.9: Complete/incomplete works Yes 20% No 80% Supervision by technical assistant Yes No Complete 75% Incomplete 25% Complete/imcomplete works Complete Incomplete
- 23. 19 30 works are complete and 10 are incomplete. The MGNREGA website doesn’t throw proper data on completed work since completion certificate of works is often not given and so the data entry is done as incomplete even for a complete work. Figure 3.10: Technical quality of assets 23 assets have sound technical quality, 7 assets are not technically sound and this is not applicable for 10 incomplete assets. However, sustainability of the technically good assets is in question since the planning is not based on principles of watershed. Social audits were done for only 5 assets in a village due to the initiative of the local leadership. Social audit was not done for all other assets in rest of the eight villages. Good 57% Bad 18% Incomplete works 25% Technical quality of assets Good Bad Incomplete works
- 24. 20 CHAPTER 4: IMPACT GENERATED An asset has certain intended benefits or impacts to be achieved. The study analyzed if the assets are achieving their intended benefits. It further analyzes the nature of impact achieved. Besides, the impact of assets on checking migration, raising income and social profile of the beneficiary are also taken into consideration. Figure 4.1: Assets and their intended impact Amongst the 16 beneficiaries of private assets who migrated seasonally for employment, 6 reported that their migration has been stopped completely due to the income and employment generated through MGNREGA assets. 10 people continued their seasonal migration. 12 of the personal beneficiaries were not migrating for work earlier. 0 10 20 30 40 50 47.5 35 5 12.5 Assets and intended impact (%) Assets and intended impact (%)
- 25. 21 Figure 4.2: Impact on migration 63% of beneficiaries reported increase in their income. 37% beneficiaries don’t yield any income from the assets. Increase in income couldn’t be measured precisely because return on investment (RoI) study wasn’t feasible to do. Figure 4.3: Increase in income from assets Apart from the income from assets, rural people also get income in the form of wages they earn by doing MGNREGA work. A study conducted by Pragati Abhiyan, the host organization, for its Positive 37% Negative 63% Impact on migration Positive Negative Yes 56% No 44% Increase in income Yes No
- 26. 22 impact assessment for the year 2012-13, shows that the people are earning significant income in the form of wages too. In its field area, a worker got 47 days of average work. He/she earned 10466 rupees as average wages. A family of 3 to 4 workers earned in the range of 30-40 thousand rupees as wages. This much amount is probably the highest among any other source of income a family earns during a year in this area. Table 4.1: Income generation through MGNREGA wages in Nashik Workers provided work 3590 Person days generated 169965 Person days generated per household 47 Average earning by a worker (rupees) 10466 Average earning by a family (rupees) 30000 - 40000 Source: Annual report of 2011, Pragati Abhiyan Figure 4.4: Nature of impact of assets Supportive irrigation in Kharip 6% Transportation facility 15% Irrigation in Rabi 18% water and soil conservation, land development 26% Zero impact 35% Nature of impact (%) Supportive irrigation in Kharip Transportation facility Irrigation in Rabi water and soil conservation, land development Zero impact
- 27. 23 The agriculture in the study area is rainfed agriculture. As figure 4.2 suggests, 18% of the assets has helped beneficiaries irrigate their lands in Rabi 4 season too. The no of crops grown and the number of times they are grown has increased significantly due to the irrigational facility. 26% of the assets helped beneficiaries for supportive irrigation in Kharip 5 season. The fluctuating nature of rains significantly affect yield of the crops like Paddy. Hence, supportive irrigation becomes very important for profitable yield. And of course, roads, both intra or inter villages are particularly important in this hilly and remote terrain. 15% of the assets provided transportation facility to the villages concerned. MGNERGA is self targeting in nature. The workers who demand work and actually do the work are benefitted from the act. While it’s a serious that MGNREGA doesn’t create assets for landless farmers directly, it is definitely a boon for small and marginal farmers who don’t have capital to build assets. Most of the personal beneficiaries are BPL families, small and marginal farmers and all of them are tribal in living in utter destitution. Figure 4.5: How do people feel about assets 4 Winter season i.e. December to April of the year 5 Rainy season i.e. June to November of the year Happy/satisfacti on 52% Sorrow/regret 48% How beneficiaries feel? Happy/satisfaction Sorrow/regret
- 28. 24 It’s important to know the feelings of people even though they may not serve as precise evidence for examining productive assets. Still they are important as they are feelings and are powerful in driving people’s actions. People reported that they are satisfied with the 52% of the assets and they regretted their decision of building 48% of the assets through MGNREGA. Problematic farm ponds Out of 40, 11 Farm ponds, the highest in number among other assets, were built. But none of them achieve intended impact i.e. to store water for Kharip and rabi crops and other purposes. Only 3 assets showed very marginal capacity of water storage and conservation. Only 2 farm ponds helped the beneficiaries to raise their income and others regretted their decision of creating farm pond through MGNREGA. Apparently the problem seems to be correlated with cite selection since only 3 out of 11 farm ponds are correct sites. However, a hydro-geological study can only show whether farm pond is suitable and productive structure in the geographical condition of the terrain. Are Wells really well? 9 wells comprise the second highest in number among the assets selected for the study. 6 wells are incomplete works. 3 complete assets are of good technical quality. Site selection is correct for all the wells. Wells are significant in providing irrigation for almost 10 months a year in these drylands. 5 beneficiaries are happy with their decision, reaping the intended benefits of wells and higher incomes. Rest 4 beneficiaries regret their decision to build wells through MGNREGA. Pragati Abhiyan, the host organization, had conducted a study on wells taken up under MGNREGA. It studied 80 wells works started during February to June 2012. Only 1.6% of total unskilled wages were paid on time. 24.2% of unskilled wages were delayed payment paid after one to two months of work done. 74.2% of wages were not paid at all at the time when study was conducted in June 2012. Only 4.5% of wells were completed. 22% of well works were ongoing and 73.5% of well works were abandoned. 30% of well were abandoned due to nonpayment of wages to workers. Other 70% of wells were abandoned due to nonpayment of skilled and material costs. (Annual report of 2012: Pragati Abhiyan)
- 29. 25 The beneficiaries receive funds for material and skilled expenditure through installments by the governments. However, the installments are paid never on time and delays cause serious problems for the beneficiary like borrowing money from others leaving the wells in incomplete and bad shape hampering its technical quality. Delayed wage payments and fund distribution through installments is the bottleneck in creating productive and durable wells through MGNREGA. A study conducted in Jharkhand corroborates the findings of this study (Ankit Kumar et all 2012). Targeted Plantation Plantations were done under MGNREGA in 3 villages as a part of the Maharashtra state government’s campaign of planting 5 billion trees in the next five years. The estimated budget for the programme is 5000 crore rupees a year and it is linked with MGNREGA. Plantation was in extremely hopeless state at all public places like road side and will yield little impact. Only there is some hope for seedlings distributed to farmers and families. Instead of locally relevant trees, foreign trees were planted. People were not taken into consideration. Use of machine Since creating wage employment is one of the main objectives of MGNREGA, use of machine is strictly prohibited and it is only allowed for certain task like blasting, roller, etc. 2 out of 40 works studies were done illegally using JCB machine. Besides, no personal beneficiary was asked for or paid bribe for getting the private asset done through MGNREGA.
- 30. 26 CHAPTER 5: CASE STUDIES Case studies showcase what quantitative data fails to throw light on. The following case studies are prepared to capture the impact generated by the assets and the difference they have made to the lives of poor tribals in these villages. While the overall impact in numbers may look negative, these case studies demonstrate the potential of MGNREGA for rural and marginalized poor. The case studies, though few in numbers, stand by the principles of MGNREGA empirically and demand quantum leap at really large scale. Shankar Pujara Shanka Pujara, a physically disabled person, from Aswali Harsh village, belongs to Kokana tribe and his family falls under below poverty line. He owns 4 acres of land. His wife and daughter used to work on neighbouring farms, sew clothes or migrate at a times for employment generating meager earning. Shankar, through his proactive effort and trainings given by the host organization, got a farm pond and well constructed during 2011 and 2012 under MGNREGA. He had to face lot of issues for getting assets done. He had to fight against use of JCB machine on his farm pond and face demeaning remarks of government officials. He suffered due the delays related to wage and material payments and had raise money through borrowings for payments related to well construction. Nonetheless, he could overcome the issues and get the farm pond and well done. (Other 2 beneficiaries couldn’t stand the issues and so left their wells incomplete.) Both the works are still incomplete but still he is reaping the some benefits from the assets. Now he can irrigate 4 acres of land with the farm pond and well up to 10 months a year. Earlier he could grow rice in Kharip season only. Now he is also growing wheat and vegetables in Rabi season. The assets have helped stop migration of not only of his family but of other 3 families also and generated employment for 5-6 people through agriculture. The assets have also helped to rectify
- 31. 27 severe shortage of drinking water in his hamlet. Shankar is also planning nonfarm activities like poultry and nursery with the increased water availability due to the assets. Shankar Pujara has set an example that his villagers are trying to emulate and reap enormous benefits of MGNREGA. Ambadas Bhusari Sitting in green and lush wheat fields at Dolharmal village, Ambadas was talking about how the land leveling work done through MGNREGA has helped him. Land leveling work typically requires machine i.e. a tractor and it costs high. The small and marginal farmers like Ambadas can’t afford this and can’t cultivate their waste lands for agricultural activities. Ambadas got his 5 acres of land leveling work done in December 2011. Earlier Ambadas was harvesting low quality rice from his low quality land. Now his land has become more fertile and he is harvesting good quality rice in Kharip season. He is also growing wheat and vegetables in Rabi season. The asset has stopped his family’s migration and raised its income 10 times higher. The diet of his family is improved and there is enough fodder for feeding cattle. Road work Chinchale Khaire, located in the remote valley, is 10 KM away from Igatpuri block place. In 2011, internal road was constructed under MGNREGA connecting 5 different hamlets of the village. Now the tribals in the village are able to take bullock cart and other vehicles to their farms and carry their farm produce to the market. Now they are able to move patients to hospitals urgently in case of emergency. 100 workers from Chinchale Khaire worked for 2 months to construct the road. The average daily wage they earned was around 125 rupees.
- 32. 28 Narayan Bhoye Nayaran Bhoye, belongs to Kokana tribe and lives in Amlon village in Peth block, was out migrating for employment despite having 8 acres of land. His family falls under below poverty line. All the land Bhoye owned was wasteland where nothing could be grown earlier. But he could get land development work done under MGNREGA in June 2010. Now Bhoye grows crops like paddy, wheat, vegetables, gram, etc twice a year in his farm. This has substantially increased his income and he no more migrates to other places for employment. The land development work done under MGNREGA has helped him to raise his income and ceased migration completely. Conclusion Observations of the researcher suggests that it takes some loose boulder structures and land leveling works for water and soil conservation and a well for irrigation to make significant different in the lives of tribal poor of this region. All these works can be taken up under MGNREGA and the works amount to roughly to 3.5 lakh rupees. A loose boulder structure conserves water and soil and prepares waste land for rice cultivation in just a single season. Land leveling and well works increase agricultural productivity manifold. The number of crops grown goes higher and they can be grown twice a year. The farmer moves from single crop of paddy to many other crops like wheat, chilly, tomatoes, and other vegetables. A family equipped with these assets stops migrating for employment in a single year. Thus, rampant distress migration in this region can be stopped in a single year by building these productive and durable assets under MGNREGA.
- 33. 29 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Planning is critical in generating productive and durable assets. Processes related to ‘people’s participation and technical support by the Government’ are very important for planning. However, both were completely missing in the study area. Micro watershed or INRM approach was not taken into consideration at all. There was complete absence of hydro-geological and economic analysis. The works were planned in a haphazardly and their implementation was ad hoc. Awareness generation and community mobilization required for planning was not done at all. 2. The Act and guidelines clearly mention specific procedures and time bound roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders in planning and implementation processes. However, those were not followed strictly hampering the quality and usefulness of the assets generated. A strong monitoring mechanism should be involved that will ensure abiding strictly to the well laid down procedures and non compliance with them should be penalized. 3. The thrust was on creating private assets. While it is important to build assets on private lands as part of social inclusion, public assets are more technically and financially viable. The approach should be ‘whole to part’ i.e. planning for public or community works as a whole and then creating private assets. 4. The experience of National Consortium of civil society organizations on MGNREGA (NCCSO) across 11 states suggests greater role of civil society in community mobilization as well as technical support for planning of MGNREGA works. The operational guidelines 2013 also validate and define the role of civil society more elaborately for effective implementation of the Act. Hence, participation of civil society organizations should be encouraged in planning and implementation processes.
- 34. 30 5. Gram Panchayat plays very important role in planning and implementation of MGNREGA works. However, Gram Panchayats are not well equipped with training, human resource and funds. Capacity building of Gram Panchayats is a core issue that needs urgent attention. 6. Expertise of line departments like agriculture, irrigation, forest, etc. must be involved in the planning and implementation of MGNREGA. A campaign can launched in the selected blocks developing 5 year development plans based on the principles of watershed development can be taken up with the support and pressure from the top and ensuring participation from the bottom. 7. MGNREGA opens up opportunities for convergence with different programmes. The aim of convergence is to optimize public investments made under existing schemes. Madhya Pradesh has done some significant work on convergence through the schemes like Kapildhara i.e. a convergence between MGNREGA, agriculture and horticulture departments. Such schemes should be emulated and scaled up across the country. 8. Effective planning and implantation for required building productive and durable assets has direct correlation with the availability of technical staff on the field. (CAG report 2007). Apart from technical staff of various line departments, a full time dedicated technical panel should be appointed at block level. 9. Use of Information Technology can ensure inclusive planning at village level. An innovation in this regard developed by CEC6 should be piloted and scaled up. Besides, Andhra Pradesh, with the help of TCS7 , has developed and effectively using a software for preparing technical designs more instantly and effectively. Since sustainability of an asset largely depends on soundness of technical design, such software should be scaled up in other states too. 6 CEC is Centre for Environmental Concerns, a Hyderabad based civil society organization working extensively on MGNREGA and livelihoods. 7 Tata consultancy services, a firm providing IT support for MGNREGA implementation to government of Andhra Pradesh.
- 35. 31 REFERENCES Ministry of rural development, Government of India, "Mahatma Gandhi NREGA operational guidelines." Last modified 2013. Accessed Sep 11, 2012. http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/WriteReaddata/Circulars/Operational_guidelines_4thEdition_eng_20 13.pdf.. Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India.MGNREGA Sameeksha. Delhi: Orient BlackSwan, 2012. District Statistics Office, Government of Maharashtra. Socio-economic survey 2011, Nashik district. Nashik: Directorate of finance and statistics, 2011. Office of the Registrar and census commissioner of India, Government of India. Ministry of Home affairs, "Census 2011." Last modified 2011. Accessed Jan 15, 2013. http://www.census2011.co.in/census/district/354-nashik.html Bhalla, Surjit. "In the name of poor." Indian express, February 17, 2011. http://www.indianexpress.com/news/in-the-name-of-the-poor/751211/0 (accessed Jan 11, 2013). Shah, Mihir. "Manual labour and growth." Economic and political weekly. Vol-lll No.51. no. Dec 20 (2008). Siddhartha, Vanaik, Anish . "CAG report on NREGA: fact and fiction." Economic and political weekly. no. June 21 (2008). Aggarwal, et all. "Evaluation of NREGA wells in Jharkhand."Economic and political weekly. Vol XLVll No.35. no. Sep 01 (2012). Mahapatra, et all. Down to Earth, "A millions opportunities lost." Last modified Dec 15, 2011. Accessed Sep 15, 2012. http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/million-opportunities-lost. Pragati Abhiyan, . Annual report 2012. Nashik: Pragati Abhiyan, 2013. Pragati Abhiyan, . Report on the status of NREGA wells in Nashik. Nashik: Pragati Abhiyan, 2013.